Archiver > YORKSGEN > 2006-03 > 1142467734

From: "Jean and Terry" <>
Subject: Re: [YKS] Blue blood at last
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:38:54 +1030
References: <282.7484fbf.3149b736@aol.com> <001701c64867$2e447eb0$d7006bd5@Lolly>

Tracing ancestors backwards is always somewhat tricky until the day comes
when DNA can help as not all children were born of the parents who claimed
them it would seem. In fact we go about it all wrong really. The only way
we can be more certain (not the word More) is to trace back through the
mother's line not the male. It would help when we encounter those unhelpful
birth or marriage certificates with no mention of father anyway. I
currently am happy to get back to 1800 Jean in S. australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lorraine Jennings" <>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: [YKS] Blue blood at last

> I pondered the question of numbers. By my reckoning, allowing for a
> conservative 3 generations per century, this 'so called' Welsh king of 200
> AD would be her great x 54 grandparent. 1 of 180143985094481984 give or
> take a large number of millions because the further one goes back in time
> there are more occurrences of people marrying 2nd/3rd etc cousins thus
> they share a close direct ancestor. This has to be the case because the
> figure one arrives at for 40 generations (i.e. 2 to the power of 40) of 1
> trillion is more than the number of people who have ever lived on earth.

This thread: